Gregory J. Reigel
Serving clients throughout the U.S.
Tel (214) 780-1482
Email: info@aerolegalservices.com

 
[Top Background]
Aviation Law Discussions Subscribe XML

A site devoted to aviation law, safety and security.

May 10, 2017

Are You Fit For Duty?

If you are a flightcrew member for an air carrier operating under 14 C.F.R. Part 121 you know that 14 C.F.R. Part 117 contains flight, duty, and rest regulations that apply to all Part 121 passenger operations. One specific regulation, Section 117.5(d), requires a flightcrew member to “affirmatively state that he or she is fit for duty prior to commencing flight.” Section 117.3 defines “fit for duty” as “physiologically and mentally prepared and capable of performing assigned duties at the highest degree of safety.” What does that mean?

Unfortunately, no objective science-based standard currently exists for measuring fatigue levels. As a result, Section 117.5 doesn’t say just how fatigued a flightcrew member must be in order for him or her to be “unfit for duty.” Rather, the regulation simply states that an individual flightcrew member is “fit for duty” if he or she is capable of safely performing his or her assigned duties. According to the FAA, this determination must be made by each individual flightcrew member based upon a variety of factors, such as the length and difficulty of the flight duty assignment, time of day, and the flightcrew member's self-knowledge of how he or she deals with different levels of fatigue.

Which means flightcrew members’ fit for duty determinations are subjective. But, according to the FAA, this subjectivity “is mitigated by the fact that flightcrew members will undergo fatigue education and awareness training, which will increase each flightcrew member's ability to self-assess his or her fatigue levels.”

So, how does this apply in specific situations? For example, what if the flightcrew member is slightly fatigued at the end of a flight duty period (“FDP”)? Does that mean the flightcrew member should not have accepted the flight assignment? The FAA says “no.” Given the various individual factors that go into a fitness for duty determination, the FAA will not categorically say that a slight amount of fatigue that appears at the end of an FDP would always render a flightcrew member unfit for duty. As long as the flightcrew member is able to affirmatively state at the beginning of the FDP that he or she is fit for duty, then the flightcrew member may accept the assigned flight duty.

What about when the flightcrew member has been awake for 16, 18 or even 24 continuous hours prior to accepting the assigned flight duty? If the flightcrew member certifies that he or she is fit for duty in that situation is that a violation of the regulation? Here again, the FAA says “not necessarily.” Although it is significantly more likely that a person who has been awake for such an extended period of time will not be fit for duty, the regulations do not necessarily preclude the flightcrew member from accepting an assigned flight duty under those circumstances. The flightcrew member must still make an individualized determination and consider, as one factor along with others, the amount of time that the flightcrew member has been continuously awake.

Another common situation arises when an FDP involves more than one flight segment. If the flightcrew member is fit for duty at the beginning of the first flight segment but later determines he or she is not fit for duty before starting a subsequent flight segment during that FDP, then what? Since Section 117.5(d) requires a flightcrew member to reassess whether he or she is fit for duty prior to each flight segment, in that situation the flightcrew member would not be permitted to fly the subsequent flight segment. Similarly, if a flightcrew member reports for an FDP and is fit for duty at that time but that FDP is later extended, the flightcrew member must then reassess whether he or she can continue to serve on the extended FDP.

Thus, in order to be “fit for duty”, flightcrew members must decide, both at the beginning of an FDP and during that FDP that they are mentally and physically prepared and capable of safely performing their assigned duties and then take any necessary steps to comply with the rule. Flightcrew members should use their best judgment to make that determination and then act accordingly.



Posted by Greg

May 04, 2017

How To Decide Whether To Conduct A Reasonable Cause/Suspicion Drug or Alcohol Test

If you are an aviation employer who employs safety sensitive employees, you know 14 C.F.R. § 120.109(d) requires that you drug test an employee when you reasonably suspect that employee of having used a prohibited drug. Similarly, 14 C.F.R. § 120.217 requires an employee to submit to an alcohol test when the employer reasonably suspects the employee of misusing alcohol contrary to 14 C.F.R. § 120.37. In order to make that decision, you must have a reasonable and articulable belief that the employee is using a prohibited drug. To do that, you need to look at the employee's specific contemporaneous physical, behavioral, or performance indicators of probable drug or alcohol use. But what does this really mean? Well, fortunately, the FAA has a form for that!

The FAA has a "Reasonable Cause/Reasonable Suspicion Testing Form" employers may use to not only assist with making the reasonable cause/suspicion determination, but also to document that determination once made for the employer's file. The Form includes a number of categories for the types of observations an employer must make in order to determine whether reasonable cause/suspicion exists for the employer to require an employee to submit to a drug or alcohol test. The categories include:
  • Appearance;
  • Behavior/Demeanor;
  • Motor Skills;
  • Speech; and
  • Odor.
Within each of these categories, the Form also provides a number of "check the box" choices for characteristics/behaviors that are indicative of drug or alcohol use. The employer simply needs to make the observations, check the corresponding boxes, and then make the decision whether sufficient indicia are present to support conducting a test. The Form includes 48 different observations an employer may make that would support conducting a reasonable cause/suspicion drug or alcohol test.

Employers are not required to use the Form. However, the Form provides an easy way to not only make the determination, but also to document and record the basis for the determination. And, as we all know, keeping appropriate drug and alcohol testing program records is both required and necessary to keep the FAA happy if/when it decides to audit your program.

Posted by Greg

Aviation Law Discussions - Archives

12/01/2003 - 12/31/2003
01/01/2004 - 01/31/2004
02/01/2004 - 02/29/2004
03/01/2004 - 03/31/2004
04/01/2004 - 04/30/2004
05/01/2004 - 05/31/2004
06/01/2004 - 06/30/2004
07/01/2004 - 07/31/2004
08/01/2004 - 08/31/2004
09/01/2004 - 09/30/2004
10/01/2004 - 10/31/2004
11/01/2004 - 11/30/2004
12/01/2004 - 12/31/2004
01/01/2005 - 01/31/2005
02/01/2005 - 02/28/2005
03/01/2005 - 03/31/2005
04/01/2005 - 04/30/2005
05/01/2005 - 05/31/2005
06/01/2005 - 06/30/2005
07/01/2005 - 07/31/2005
08/01/2005 - 08/31/2005
09/01/2005 - 09/30/2005
10/01/2005 - 10/31/2005
11/01/2005 - 11/30/2005
12/01/2005 - 12/31/2005
01/01/2006 - 01/31/2006
02/01/2006 - 02/28/2006
03/01/2006 - 03/31/2006
04/01/2006 - 04/30/2006
05/01/2006 - 05/31/2006
06/01/2006 - 06/30/2006
07/01/2006 - 07/31/2006
08/01/2006 - 08/31/2006
09/01/2006 - 09/30/2006
10/01/2006 - 10/31/2006
11/01/2006 - 11/30/2006
12/01/2006 - 12/31/2006
01/01/2007 - 01/31/2007
02/01/2007 - 02/28/2007
03/01/2007 - 03/31/2007
04/01/2007 - 04/30/2007
05/01/2007 - 05/31/2007
06/01/2007 - 06/30/2007
07/01/2007 - 07/31/2007
08/01/2007 - 08/31/2007
09/01/2007 - 09/30/2007
10/01/2007 - 10/31/2007
11/01/2007 - 11/30/2007
12/01/2007 - 12/31/2007
01/01/2008 - 01/31/2008
02/01/2008 - 02/29/2008
03/01/2008 - 03/31/2008
04/01/2008 - 04/30/2008
05/01/2008 - 05/31/2008
06/01/2008 - 06/30/2008
07/01/2008 - 07/31/2008
08/01/2008 - 08/31/2008
09/01/2008 - 09/30/2008
10/01/2008 - 10/31/2008
11/01/2008 - 11/30/2008
12/01/2008 - 12/31/2008
01/01/2009 - 01/31/2009
02/01/2009 - 02/28/2009
03/01/2009 - 03/31/2009
04/01/2009 - 04/30/2009
05/01/2009 - 05/31/2009
06/01/2009 - 06/30/2009
07/01/2009 - 07/31/2009
08/01/2009 - 08/31/2009
09/01/2009 - 09/30/2009
10/01/2009 - 10/31/2009
11/01/2009 - 11/30/2009
12/01/2009 - 12/31/2009
01/01/2010 - 01/31/2010
02/01/2010 - 02/28/2010
03/01/2010 - 03/31/2010
04/01/2010 - 04/30/2010
05/01/2010 - 05/31/2010
06/01/2010 - 06/30/2010
07/01/2010 - 07/31/2010
08/01/2010 - 08/31/2010
09/01/2010 - 09/30/2010
10/01/2010 - 10/31/2010
11/01/2010 - 11/30/2010
12/01/2010 - 12/31/2010
01/01/2011 - 01/31/2011
02/01/2011 - 02/28/2011
03/01/2011 - 03/31/2011
05/01/2011 - 05/31/2011
06/01/2011 - 06/30/2011
07/01/2011 - 07/31/2011
08/01/2011 - 08/31/2011
09/01/2011 - 09/30/2011
10/01/2011 - 10/31/2011
11/01/2011 - 11/30/2011
12/01/2011 - 12/31/2011
01/01/2012 - 01/31/2012
02/01/2012 - 02/29/2012
03/01/2012 - 03/31/2012
04/01/2012 - 04/30/2012
05/01/2012 - 05/31/2012
06/01/2012 - 06/30/2012
07/01/2012 - 07/31/2012
08/01/2012 - 08/31/2012
10/01/2012 - 10/31/2012
11/01/2012 - 11/30/2012
12/01/2012 - 12/31/2012
02/01/2013 - 02/28/2013
04/01/2013 - 04/30/2013
05/01/2013 - 05/31/2013
06/01/2013 - 06/30/2013
07/01/2013 - 07/31/2013
08/01/2013 - 08/31/2013
11/01/2013 - 11/30/2013
12/01/2013 - 12/31/2013
01/01/2014 - 01/31/2014
02/01/2014 - 02/28/2014
05/01/2014 - 05/31/2014
07/01/2014 - 07/31/2014
08/01/2014 - 08/31/2014
10/01/2014 - 10/31/2014
12/01/2014 - 12/31/2014
01/01/2015 - 01/31/2015
03/01/2015 - 03/31/2015
04/01/2015 - 04/30/2015
06/01/2015 - 06/30/2015
07/01/2015 - 07/31/2015
08/01/2015 - 08/31/2015
10/01/2015 - 10/31/2015
12/01/2015 - 12/31/2015
03/01/2016 - 03/31/2016
07/01/2016 - 07/31/2016
08/01/2016 - 08/31/2016
10/01/2016 - 10/31/2016
01/01/2017 - 01/31/2017
02/01/2017 - 02/28/2017
03/01/2017 - 03/31/2017
04/01/2017 - 04/30/2017
05/01/2017 - 05/31/2017

< ? law blogs # >

The information contained in this web-site is intended for the education and benefit of those visiting the Aero Legal Services site. The information should not be relied upon as advice to help you with your specific issue. Each case is unique and must be analyzed by an attorney licensed to practice in your area with respect to the particular facts and applicable current law before any advice can be given. Sending an e-mail to Aero Legal Services or Gregory J. Reigel does not create an attorney-client relationship. Advice will not be given by e-mail until an attorney-client relationship has been established.

© Gregory J. Reigel-Aero Legal Services 2002-Present. All rights reserved.